New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why must we become either a theoacary or commie hellhole????

Huskyoverlord

Council Member
The two main parties want us to go in either of those directions. Government and religion were not meant to go hand and hand , read the first amendment. The federal government has some very spefic jobs to do and by streamlining and providing better quality. The solution is simple more workers and less managment. I don't understand when america got a caste system but I do belive it has to do with colleges. We have pigioned holed ourselves into failed ideals , and need to follow our country's core and that is the bill of rights and delecartion of independance. Ilegal immigartion can be sovled with a soild two pronged appoarch. First we reexamine the cost and process for legal immigration make it easier to be an american , cut down drasticly on work and school visas and just make it you can live here or just visit. Strenghten our boders with all the douchebag cops that run rampant throughout america and just place them on the boders.
 

biglin

Council Member
I think it's a slight exaggeration to suggest that the Democrats want to establish Communism in America and I think that though the religious right have undoubtedly got undue influence over the Republican Party when push comes to shove they'll pull away from their most extreme policies.

Even so, its a good question. Why doesn't America have a load of parties like most other nations do? Why are they stuck with a choice between two equally dubious sets of yellow twicers?

There hasn't been an HONEST man in the White House since the days of Jimmy Carter (and he wasn't much GOOD at his job!) Before him you had Gerald Ford and after that you've got to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find another honest President (and he wasnt much good at his job either).

The last time there was a President who was both honest and good at his job was probably Abraham Lincoln!

The story of the appalling corruption in US politics (of all the world's democracies it's far and away the worst - right on the level of a Third World country in terms of its utter pork-barrel corruptness) is one of my great sadnesses.

I love America and am proud to be a friend and ally of that country.

I just wish they could find a way to factor out the gross abuse of power that both parties have indulged in for centuries.

As far as I can see it was that appalling President John Adams who introduced the spoils system but since then numerous other aspects of corrupt practices have become routine in the USA.

It's very sad.
 

TheResister

Council Member
The two main parties want us to go in either of those directions. Government and religion were not meant to go hand and hand , read the first amendment. The federal government has some very spefic jobs to do and by streamlining and providing better quality. The solution is simple more workers and less managment. I don't understand when america got a caste system but I do belive it has to do with colleges. We have pigioned holed ourselves into failed ideals , and need to follow our country's core and that is the bill of rights and delecartion of independance. Ilegal immigartion can be sovled with a soild two pronged appoarch. First we reexamine the cost and process for legal immigration make it easier to be an american , cut down drasticly on work and school visas and just make it you can live here or just visit. Strenghten our boders with all the douchebag cops that run rampant throughout america and just place them on the boders.
Can we talk seriously on this subject?

While America was not founded as a theocracy, it was founded on Christian principles. The First Amendment provides that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment does not read as you imply. We are not to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion. You make it sound like Congress shall not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

Since you mention colleges, you may need to know that Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

Working on a foundation of Christian principles America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. AFTER we began rejecting our heritage this country began to fail. When America renounced the principles that led to our rise and our greatness, then and only then did we begin the slide into tyranny, oppression and despair. Politics is nothing more than religion in action.

A man cannot say he believes in Liberty and then practice a belief that rejects the concept because our forefathers got their concept of Liberty from the Bible. It's either you believe in unalienable Rights, bestowed upon you by a Creator OR you believe that rights are granted by a government / God that bestows rights on you just because you're a willing subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER. So, which side do you stand on?
 

Jen

Trump 2020
The two main parties want us to go in either of those directions. Government and religion were not meant to go hand and hand , read the first amendment. The federal government has some very spefic jobs to do and by streamlining and providing better quality. The solution is simple more workers and less managment. I don't understand when america got a caste system but I do belive it has to do with colleges. We have pigioned holed ourselves into failed ideals , and need to follow our country's core and that is the bill of rights and delecartion of independance. Ilegal immigartion can be sovled with a soild two pronged appoarch. First we reexamine the cost and process for legal immigration make it easier to be an american , cut down drasticly on work and school visas and just make it you can live here or just visit. Strenghten our boders with all the douchebag cops that run rampant throughout america and just place them on the boders.
The Republican nominee, Trump, is NOT a person who would even remotely make this nation into a theocracy.

So I'm not sure where your opinion here is coming from.
 

TheResister

Council Member
The Republican nominee, Trump, is NOT a person who would even remotely make this nation into a theocracy.

So I'm not sure where your opinion here is coming from.
The Republican nominee, Trump, is NOT a person who would even remotely make this nation into a theocracy.

So I'm not sure where your opinion here is coming from.
The OP brought up the issue of a theocracy and how our current system operates. Neither Trump nor Clinton... or Bernie Sanders, if he were to get elected, would take us back to the principles that made us great.

Trump, through dishonesty and ignorance about the real world, would destroy this country forever.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Can we talk seriously on this subject?

While America was not founded as a theocracy, it was founded on Christian principles. The First Amendment provides that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment does not read as you imply. We are not to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion. You make it sound like Congress shall not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

Since you mention colleges, you may need to know that Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

Working on a foundation of Christian principles America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. AFTER we began rejecting our heritage this country began to fail. When America renounced the principles that led to our rise and our greatness, then and only then did we begin the slide into tyranny, oppression and despair. Politics is nothing more than religion in action.

A man cannot say he believes in Liberty and then practice a belief that rejects the concept because our forefathers got their concept of Liberty from the Bible. It's either you believe in unalienable Rights, bestowed upon you by a Creator OR you believe that rights are granted by a government / God that bestows rights on you just because you're a willing subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER. So, which side do you stand on?
Fundamentalist Constitutionalism

The obsolete sacred cow, the Constitution, is being treated sacrilegiously like a Bible or a Koran. So we are a political version of a theocracy and must free ourselves from that. As Martin Luther preached about the Bible, every person must take his own meaning from it.

The Founding Fathers are treated heretically like the Evangelists. The real founding fathers were the pilgrims and other pioneers, such as Daniel Boone.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Fundamentalist Constitutionalism

The obsolete sacred cow, the Constitution, is being treated sacrilegiously like a Bible or a Koran. So we are a political version of a theocracy and must free ourselves from that. As Martin Luther preached about the Bible, every person must take his own meaning from it.

The Founding Fathers are treated heretically like the Evangelists. The real founding fathers were the pilgrims and other pioneers, such as Daniel Boone.
Both the right and left want to say we are a nation of laws. Every culture is predicated upon some ideological basis. With respect to the Constitution, it is considered as the supreme law of the land by the legalists and the politicians. But which Constitution? It's been reinterpreted almost 180 degrees opposite of where we started out. Those who were the pioneers of that document had this to say:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed
."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. ...If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." George Washington, Farewell Address

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

If we were to "free" ourselves of the Constitution, what law do you think we would obey? Some want to institute Sharia Law; others advocate secular humanism (the unofficial religion of the U.S.); some want anarchy, One World Government, the ultimate POLICE STATE, National Socialism, Democratic Socialism, etc., etc.

Perhaps you prefer democracy?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

You don't like the Constitution. What law do you want to live by?



 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Both the right and left want to say we are a nation of laws. Every culture is predicated upon some ideological basis. With respect to the Constitution, ... "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Outstanding! You should post it everywhere you can. You should print it and hand it out to people.
May I?
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
Both the right and left want to say we are a nation of laws. Every culture is predicated upon some ideological basis. With respect to the Constitution, it is considered as the supreme law of the land by the legalists and the politicians. But which Constitution? It's been reinterpreted almost 180 degrees opposite of where we started out. Those who were the pioneers of that document had this to say:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed
."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
That's great except it destroys your ideological interpretation as a "strict constructionist", since none of the founders intended for strict construction in the Constitution. To understand the Constitution one only need to understand the Federalist Papers, and the laws at the time.
 
Last edited:
Both the right and left want to say we are a nation of laws. Every culture is predicated upon some ideological basis. With respect to the Constitution, it is considered as the supreme law of the land by the legalists and the politicians. But which Constitution? It's been reinterpreted almost 180 degrees opposite of where we started out. Those who were the pioneers of that document had this to say:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed
."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. ...If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." George Washington, Farewell Address

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

If we were to "free" ourselves of the Constitution, what law do you think we would obey? Some want to institute Sharia Law; others advocate secular humanism (the unofficial religion of the U.S.); some want anarchy, One World Government, the ultimate POLICE STATE, National Socialism, Democratic Socialism, etc., etc.

Perhaps you prefer democracy?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

You don't like the Constitution. What law do you want to live by?
Another Elitist Tool to Hammer the Excluded Into Submission

You treat those quotes as Gospel and expect a free mind to bow down before them. I don't care for any quote from an aristocrat like Tocqueville. His parents should have been guillotined and all birth privileges buried with their class forever. Since he would have been nothing on his own, he had no right to slam democracy to justify his own existence.

We live by the laws we make and don't need a bullying overlord commanding us to give special privileges to the first laws. They have no more permanence than any other laws, which can be repealed by a simple majority and not a purposely obstructive amendment process.
 
That's great except it destroys your ideological interpretation as a "strict constructionist", since none of the founders intended for strict construction in the Constitution. To understand the Constitution one only need to understand the Federalist Papers, and the laws at the time.
Intimidation Through Glorification

That would only tell you the primitive kind of political thinking during the horse-and-buggy era. Such study is motivated by intellectual curiosity and is non-binding. This worship of the Constitution and its Framers is, like any other religion, used for belittling the people and deifying those in power over them. I don't feel any desperate need to attack myself to this insulting regime. I am far superior to those subliminating snakes who rely on cradle-to-grave brainwashing.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Another Elitist Tool to Hammer the Excluded Into Submission

You treat those quotes as Gospel and expect a free mind to bow down before them. I don't care for any quote from an aristocrat like Tocqueville. His parents should have been guillotined and all birth privileges buried with their class forever. Since he would have been nothing on his own, he had no right to slam democracy to justify his own existence.

We live by the laws we make and don't need a bullying overlord commanding us to give special privileges to the first laws. They have no more permanence than any other laws, which can be repealed by a simple majority and not a purposely obstructive amendment process.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results" Benjamin Franklin

It appears that the only force you acknowledge is the force of a majority. The thing I think is most important, and bear in mind I'm on my own for the most part, is the concept of Liberty.

In the Declaration of Independence are the foundational principles upon which men fought, bled and died over. The most important was that of unalienable Rights. No majority has the authority to dispossess you of those.
 

TheResister

Council Member
There are people in every religion that are elitist. While America was founded on Christian principles, the government was not founded on elitism.

Sure, the founding fathers wanted to create a nation that secured the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity, but every civilization has something closely akin to that.

What made us different is that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Regardless of who you were and what you believed or did not believe, the foundational principle is that you were endowed with Rights that were above the jurisdiction of man and man could not infringe upon them.

In a de jure system as ours was intended to be other people cannot infringe on your unalienable Rights. Unfortunately people from both sides of the fence see opportunities to misrepresent the facts and they put up smokescreens in order to sell their own brand of snake oil that hasn't worked anywhere else.

The left/ non-Christian / atheist / humanists, etc. side withholds unalienable Rights on the basis of a majority vote. The conservatives and Tea Party types do not acknowledge those unalienable Rights and proclaim that your Rights are dependent upon your citizenship AND your willingness to toe the line and accept their version of right and wrong - which means they believe in a Government God.

We were designed to be a nation that passed laws that would protect the posterity of the founding fathers, yet allow others the Liberties they were born with. Too many people confuse the issue whether deliberately or through ignorance or meanness. For example, non-citizens cannot vote, draw from the public treasury (like food stamps, unemployment, etc) and they should not be getting a taxpayer paid education. OTOH, everybody is (in the America envisioned by the founding fathers) welcome to engage in business pursuits, travel, and worship according to the dictates of their conscience inside our borders.

What's not to like about such a system?
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
There are people in every religion that are elitist. While America was founded on Christian principles, the government was not founded on elitism.

Sure, the founding fathers wanted to create a nation that secured the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity, but every civilization has something closely akin to that.

What made us different is that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Lets finish the quote and that should explain how it is we who decided to secure these very rights for ourselves and to fight for others in countries that deny their people those very rights. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Regardless of who you were and what you believed or did not believe, the foundational principle is that you were endowed with Rights that were above the jurisdiction of man and man could not infringe upon them.
Well, now you need to understand those very words verse strictly interpreting them in your ideological inanity.

In a de jure system as ours was intended to be other people cannot infringe on your unalienable Rights. Unfortunately people from both sides of the fence see opportunities to misrepresent the facts and they put up smokescreens in order to sell their own brand of snake oil that hasn't worked anywhere else.

The left/ non-Christian / atheist / humanists, etc. side withholds unalienable Rights on the basis of a majority vote. The conservatives and Tea Party types do not acknowledge those unalienable Rights and proclaim that your Rights are dependent upon your citizenship AND your willingness to toe the line and accept their version of right and wrong - which means they believe in a Government God.
That's nice and all, but you are demonstrating you haven't the first clue as to what the very words you quoted from the DoI even mean.

We were designed to be a nation that passed laws that would protect the posterity of the founding fathers, yet allow others the Liberties they were born with. Too many people confuse the issue whether deliberately or through ignorance or meanness. For example, non-citizens cannot vote, draw from the public treasury (like food stamps, unemployment, etc) and they should not be getting a taxpayer paid education. OTOH, everybody is (in the America envisioned by the founding fathers) welcome to engage in business pursuits, travel, and worship according to the dictates of their conscience inside our borders.

What's not to like about such a system?
Liberties, in your context,is not in the context of the DoI or the Founders. You seem to confuse the issues deliberately through your own ignorance as nothing more than an activist for things you haven't shown yourself to be knowledgeable with.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
In the Declaration of Independence are the foundational principles upon which men fought, bled and died over. The most important was that of unalienable Rights. No majority has the authority to dispossess you of those.
You still don't comprehend that very document, You don't seem to understand the very words, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If we were to use your inept interpretation of those words, we need only look to the US Constitution to realize that you are a [Unwelcome language removed] moron. You commit a crime and your "Liberty" is/can be taken for some time, commit a heinous enough crime and your "Life" can be taken, so much for your (U)nalienable Rights. SMFH watafuknidiot
 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results" Benjamin Franklin

It appears that the only force you acknowledge is the force of a majority. The thing I think is most important, and bear in mind I'm on my own for the most part, is the concept of Liberty.

In the Declaration of Independence are the foundational principles upon which men fought, bled and died over. The most important was that of unalienable Rights. No majority has the authority to dispossess you of those.
Sheep Goosestepping Behind Chickenhawks

Through a republic, the powerful are enabled to deprive the majority of its own individual rights. And the gutless, selfish, spoiled sons of those empowered by the oligarchy's Constitution never have to fight, bleed, or die, so don't go all patriotic on me to cover up that treason.

That may change soon. The enemies of democracy will get complacent, too lazy to make the effort to continue their cradle-to-grave brainwashing glorifying their class-biased political, economic, and educational institutions.
 
Top